Reply To: Mercury, Autism & the Global Vaccine Agenda

Home The Candida Forum Candida Questions Mercury, Autism & the Global Vaccine Agenda Reply To: Mercury, Autism & the Global Vaccine Agenda

#117812

Floggi
Member
Topics: 1
Replies: 425


You’re posting a really dangerous scam that aims at the uninformed.

If you’re uninformed, you’re tempted to believe, well, anything you like.

So please allow me to inform you. Conspiracy theorists, please stop reading now.

Still with me? Good, you’re someone who likes to be informed. Great!

The phrase that’s highlighted in the video says that SIDS, autism, and a lot of other things are reported as side effects. This is true: someone believed that such a link existed, so he reported it.

So far, so good. Just normal procedure. In my country, there’s even a separated institution where anyone can report any suspected side effect.

All such reports will then be thoroughly evaluated. The evaluation may then result in the link to be confirmed, or not confirmed.

  • An example where a reported effect was confirmed, is the Diana anticonception pill. It was reported that this pill caused thrombosis. The reports were investigated, and it turned out that the reported link really existed. The Diana anticonception pill is now only prescribed in very special cases.
  • An example where a reported effect was confirmed, is local swelling around an injection. The swelling was reported, it was investigated, and it turned out that the swelling was real. It was also found out that the swelling was only temporary, and there were no other effects. This side effect was now known and accepted, because the benefits of the injection greatly outweighed the small possibility of a temporary, local swelling.
  • An example where a reported effect was found non-existing, is the link between vaccination and autism. Despite multiple action groups reporting their beliefs, no effect was found.

Heck, for all we know, ThomasJoel2 may have been the one who reported SIDS and autism as side effects! The producer is then required by law to publicise ThomasJoel2’s reporting. Next, someone makes a one-sided video that tells only a carefully selected part of the truth.

I think it’s no coincidence that the year 2005 is mentioned in the video. It’s a lie that “the link was known since 2005”. In reality, 2005 was the year when conspiracy theorists and scare-mongers gained traction. Hence, they started reporting non-existent cases to spread their theories. That’s what we now see in this scam video.